A high-powered coalition of civil liberties groups and tech titans—including all but one of the companies involved in the National Security Agency’s PRISM program—is demanding greater transparency about covert government surveillance programs, as well as the growing body of secret law that authorizes them.

In a letter released Thursday that was spearheaded by the Center for Democracy and Technology, 63 technology companies and advocacy groups asked the government to allow online service providers to publish general statistics about the use of secret intelligence tools, including orders under the Patriot Act’s Section 215—the authority at the heart of NSA’s controversial bulk metadata collection program—and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which provides the legal basis for PRISM surveillance of international communications on services like Facebook and Google. As CDT senior counsel Kevin Bankston, who orchestrated the letter, has explained, the request covers "the same type of general numerical information that has been published about law enforcement surveillance for years."

The letter also calls for the government itself to issue a regular “Transparency Report” on surveillance, similar to the ones several major tech firms have recently begun releasing. And they’re asking Congress to require the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to begin publishing declassified versions of significant legal opinions—like the one that reinterpreted Section 215 to allow indiscriminate collection of entire call record databases.

The move comes at a time when Congressional criticism over spying has heated up. The first discussions in Congress about the NSA leaks were condemnations of the leaker, Edward Snowden, rather than serious inquiries into what the NSA was doing. But at hearings yesterday, the tone had changed. Several Congressional representatives indicated that the Obama Administration had overstepped its bounds with regard to surveillance and that some programs may not be renewed.

"Unless you realize you’ve got a problem, that is not going to be renewed," said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), speaking to a Department of Justice lawyer. No one in Congress believed they had authorized universal collection of Americans' phone records, he added.

Notably, the signatories include all but one of the companies publicly reported to be providing the NSA with access to user communications under PRISM: Microsoft (which owns Skype), Yahoo, Google (which owns YouTube), Facebook, AOL, and Apple. The lone exception is PalTalk, a chat service popular in the Middle East, though relatively little known within the United States.

The letter comes as the companies have struggled to reassure users that they are diligent in protecting their customers' privacy—an effort hobbled by gag orders that typically prohibit companies from even acknowledging that they have received such requests, let alone discussing how they go about responding to them. “The commercial issue is whether people around the world are going to trust American Internet companies with their data,” Digg CEO Andrew McLaughlin told the New York Times, explaining his company’s decision to sign on.

Companies have already had limited success in casting some daylight into the shadows of national security surveillance. After extensive negotiations, the Justice Department recently allowed some companies to release extremely general aggregate information about some categories of intelligence requests. Courts have exerted pressure as well: In March, a district judge found the broad gag orders associated with National Security Letters unconstitutional, though that ruling has been stayed pending appellate review. And just this week, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court agreed to declassify the legal opinions requiring Yahoo to participate in PRISM. On the whole, however, the practical legal constraints on intelligence surveillance—and the reasoning behind them—remain hidden from both congress and the general public.

The Center for Democracy and Technology is simultaneously launching a White House petition, allowing members of the public to join the call for greater transparency.

An open and democratic government cannot operate with secret courts and remain open and democratic. The secret courts need to go or be DRAMATICALLY revised.

We as a society have to pick whether we want to have the NSA and other intelligence and police agencies 'protect us at all costs' or whether we are willing to suffer and have some more deaths to terrorism, etc., in order to maintain a free and open government.

In comparison, we freely accept 8000+ deaths per year to keep the 2nd Amendment. By that comparison, even 9/11 is not enough to swing over toward giving all of our privacy away to 'stay safe' (as if that is even a real possibility).

So, we are led to believe that all of the sudden - and only *after* their voluntary cooperation has become public knowledge - the 'tech giants' have grown a pair.

Interesting how they can pump billions into lobbying efforts that can alter the course of literally anything that may or may not impact their bottom line. Yet, when it comes to looking after their customers rights there was 'nothing they could do' because they were 'legally bound' to abandon our constitutional rights.

Tech giants: 'We do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.'

While not effortless or even possible for every single product one may be using today, finding alternatives is getting easier: http://prism-break.org

I'm curious, the companies have received gag orders to not disclose what kind of information has been requested of them, but what would the government do if someone like Microsoft decided to throw caution to the wind and pull a Snowden and tell the people what has been requested and what has been provided? It's not like it would just be 1 individual to be arrested and put in a hole for the rest of their life (like will probably happen to him), and if the government fines them they could tie it up in court for years. And I bet the government sees companies like Microsoft as "too big to fail", so I doubt they could really do a whole lot to them.

Here's hoping that even 1 company with tons of cash and clout might have even a fraction of the bravery that 1 man did. Some people call him a traitor, but so was George Washington. One of the principals this country was founded on was calling out tyrants and trying to bring things like this to light.

Not to say that I completely agree with Snowden, but now that the cat is out of the bag...

I'm curious, the companies have received gag orders to not disclose what kind of information has been requested of them, but what would the government do if someone like Microsoft decided to throw caution to the wind and pull a Snowden and tell the people what has been requested and what has been provided? It's not like it would just be 1 individual to be arrested and put in a hole for the rest of their life (like will probably happen to him), and if the government fines them they could tie it up in court for years. And I bet the government sees companies like Microsoft as "too big to fail", so I doubt they could really do a whole lot to them.

Here's hoping that even 1 company with tons of cash and clout might have even a fraction of the bravery that 1 man did. Some people call him a traitor, but so was George Washington. One of the principals this country was founded on was calling out tyrants and trying to bring things like this to light.

Not to say that I completely agree with Snowden, but now that the cat is out of the bag...

You act like it would be a punish all or punish none scenario. The government could easily just pick a couple of fall guys that were influential enough to scare the industries into line without causing significant harm to Microsoft as a whole. Well, any more harm than they would already do to themselves at least.

I imagine these big companies were told to keep the snooping quiet, but now that everyone knows it exists, they can pile on and join the consumer backlash. Who stands to benefit most from keeping this quiet? If people knew, they might just stop loading the system with personal data and start creating aliases that are harder to tie to individuals. Just look what many people willingly surrender on Facebook already.

I'm curious, the companies have received gag orders to not disclose what kind of information has been requested of them, but what would the government do if someone like Microsoft decided to throw caution to the wind and pull a Snowden and tell the people what has been requested and what has been provided?

Since the CEO is ultimately responsible, the CEO would be arrested and put up on either terrorism or espionage charges. Just defending those in court would cost a lot more than they are willing to spend. On top of that, all the civil suits from shareholders screaming about fiduciary responsibility for a move that puts the company stock in the toilet would bankrupt them. One CEO even privately threatened with this is enough to make all the fat cats to shut up and go home to their piles of cash.

An open and democratic government cannot operate with secret courts and remain open and democratic. The secret courts need to go or be DRAMATICALLY revised.

We as a society have to pick whether we want to have the NSA and other intelligence and police agencies 'protect us at all costs' or whether we are willing to suffer and have some more deaths to terrorism, etc., in order to maintain a free and open government.

In comparison, we freely accept 8000+ deaths per year to keep the 2nd Amendment. By that comparison, even 9/11 is not enough to swing over toward giving all of our privacy away to 'stay safe' (as if that is even a real possibility).

A good start would be restricting FISC to their original job, which was reviewing warrant requests for individual investigations. It is appropriate and reasonable that those be secret. It just needs to be for individual cases rather than vast blanket orders. And they need to be forbidden from reinterpreting law and establishing new legal frameworks. Warrant or no warrant, anything else goes into the normal judicial system.

I'm curious, the companies have received gag orders to not disclose what kind of information has been requested of them, but what would the government do if someone like Microsoft decided to throw caution to the wind and pull a Snowden and tell the people what has been requested and what has been provided?

Since the CEO is ultimately responsible, the CEO would be arrested and put up on either terrorism or espionage charges. Just defending those in court would cost a lot more than they are willing to spend. On top of that, all the civil suits from shareholders screaming about fiduciary responsibility for a move that puts the company stock in the toilet would bankrupt them. One CEO even privately threatened with this is enough to make all the fat cats to shut up and go home to their piles of cash.

This would probably be the case. The reason nothing happened with the Wall Street CEO's for their behavior was because the government's power wasn't threatened by the aftermath; only the lives of everyday people (so no biggie, right?).

Damned right they want a transparency report. Ever since Snowden leaked this program, tech companies in this country are being put under unrelenting pressure from consumers and are actually holding them more accountable than the government. Unfortunate that government isn't taking any responsibility or taking the major heat from this but it could irreparably harm these tech companies and telecos because consumers can hurt them where it will hurt the most, with their hard earned American money.

This whole thing has been an embarrassment on Democrats and the Obama Administration and that pressure is only going to intensify. While we knew that Washington had been monitoring our communications, we didn't want to know or rather we didn't feel we needed to know. But Edward Snowden changed all of that and as a result, it has created one of the worst scandals to ever rock this country and has also created an international incident.

Government is going to say "NO" to transparency but it could have the unintended result of creating an economic problem for these companies. Hate to say it, but these tech companies are in a catch-22 situation. It doesn't matter what the government says, since tech companies can be affected directly, Americans could simply take out their frustration on any tech company who has participated in this PRIZM program.

...63 technology companies and advocacy groups asked the government to allow online service providers to publish general statistics about the use of secret intelligence tools, including orders under the Patriot Act’s Section 215...and section 702...

You have to know that something exists before you can ask about it. And while applaud this move, how many other sections and sub-sections of various crummy laws still allow the government to engage in the actions that they've already taken with respect to the fourth amendment and the privacy of individual citizens?

And how do we find out about them if they're cloaked in "state secrets"?

But at hearings yesterday, the tone had changed. Several Congressional representatives indicated that the Obama Administration had overstepped its bounds with regard to surveillance and that some programs may not be renewed.

Ha! They'll be renewed alright. The criticism being leveled by the Congress at the NSA right now is simply political theater intended to show that congress-critters 'care'.

Congress-critters are less motivated by ideology, than they are by self-preservation. The lack of widespread outrage over the leaks suggests that if Congress and the Obama admin ride out the leaks, this 'scandal' will simply be forgotten or ignored. But if another terror attack happens, the media will slaughter any politician who may vote to pare down the NSAs surveillance. There is, therefore, only one logical decision for the politicians - re-authorize the Patriot Act and do not question creative interpretations of the law that expand the surveillance mandate of the so-called "security" agencies.

This is a cute turnaround. Suddenly the companies that have been rolling over on all of us are suddenly on the spearhead of transparency? Our saviors? Protectorate of what is Right?

Nice spin.

The sad truth is that it will probably work; people will be placated enough and go back to sleep. The statistics that these companies will provide will be heavily-doctored, abstract numbers and percents following vacuously worded legalese. Numbers that will only serve to mystify the public even more; who knew there were so many darn terrorists doing so darn much terrorizing?

And what's up with having to "ask" the NSA if it's "alright if we tell people how often we have secretly spied on them"? At least we know its all true anyhow.

We shouldn't have trusted them then and we shouldn't trust them to do "the right thing" now. They have had the chance to speak up on this since day one and have chosen to roll over on us. It's only because they got caught that this is even being discussed. Sure, we know that if the service is free, we are the product, but we all thought that was targeted ads and other benign activities to get some of our attention and maybe some of our money. We didn't know they wanted our lives. Yes, hyperbole, but frankly this whole thing reads like the lost Orwell files as it is.

The bottom line is that nobody in this mess is looking out for any of us. We are terrorists, liars and all not to be trusted at all, just like those who make those claims.

Tin Foil Alert: Given the aplomb with which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were subverted, I would not be surprised to see a cyber attack with all appearances pointing to origins in Iran, N. Korea or some terrorist state to get those pesky citizens back in line.

You guys are missing the point. These companies aren't demanding this because they realized the decent thing to do, they suddenly realized that consumers are starting to take their business elsewhere and that they saw the bottom line: a loss in profits.

When it comes to 300 million Americans purchasing what they sell versus that of the U.S. Government ... it's no contest.

More and more it seems that Edward Snowden not only did not damage national security, he deserves a medal. A lot of people are not liking what the government's been doing in secret, including---if the author of the Patriot Act is to be believed---breaking the law repeatedly.

FISA is NOT a court. While it might be grossly self labeled as a "court", anytime when you only have one attorney petitioning the court with no qualifying attorney to represent the other side (of the adversarial process), then it is not a court but rather another government entity who blindly tells the government stooges to "go out and have fun".

If there was any legitimacy to the FISA courts, then there would be an attorney arguing for the other side against the warrants. As it stands, the government wants to tell us that it cannot inform us about the proceedings of the FISA courts but that it wants us to trust that same government that it's working on our behalf? The Obama Administration has already proven to us that we cannot trust what it does nor the excuses as to why it is doing what it's doing.

Additionally, the Obama Administration (i.e., President Obama) and the Justice Department (i.e., Eric Holder) kept telling us that it wasn't spying on Americans and then it took Edward Snowden to reveal the massive program to the American People.

Uh, someone needs to tell Washington that the time to inform the American People and the time to have the discussion on the NSA secret spying programs is before those programs are not leaked, not after they are leaked. Having the discussion on these spying programs should have happened before Snowden revealed them and NEWSFLASH but the American People do not trust the government to act on their best interests.

Alternatively: Large companies have always admitted that they comply with legal requests for data. Now that there's a vast amount of misinformation doing the rounds about the size and scope of these requests, they want to correct the misinformation, but are legally forbidden from doing so.

You guys are missing the point. These companies aren't demanding this because they realized the decent thing to do, they suddenly realized that consumers are starting to take their business elsewhere and that they saw the bottom line: a loss in profits.

When it comes to 300 million Americans purchasing what they sell versus that of the U.S. Government ... it's no contest.

I would rather the companies actually had some principles and had fought this because they cared. Possibly that's even the case for some of them.

But if what I get is companies that realize the tone is changing and they are stuck on the wrong side, I will totally take that.

Why bother? Who in their right mind would believe whatever 'report' the NSA released?

If a regular person read the report, then gained the necessary security clearances and was read-into every NSA program [or even just the ones covered by the report], afterwards, they would say "This report is intentionally deceptive and is only partially truthful."

For a real-world example, when the head of the NSA appears for the Senate in public for questioning, he denies that they are gathering all these records. After these programs were publicly exposed, he said that that answer was the most truthful thing he could say, and that the Senators already knew the correct answer.

So, public NSA "hearings" are entirely for show, where both the people asking and answer the questions know the truth, but they stage a show for to LIE to the public.

An open and democratic government cannot operate with secret courts and remain open and democratic. The secret courts need to go or be DRAMATICALLY revised.

We as a society have to pick whether we want to have the NSA and other intelligence and police agencies 'protect us at all costs' or whether we are willing to suffer and have some more deaths to terrorism, etc., in order to maintain a free and open government.

In comparison, we freely accept 8000+ deaths per year to keep the 2nd Amendment. By that comparison, even 9/11 is not enough to swing over toward giving all of our privacy away to 'stay safe' (as if that is even a real possibility).

I don't accept deaths by terrorism, I don't accept deaths by the second amendment, and I don't accept the NSA's overreach. That you're having to think in terms of compromise should shock you. Why compromise?

I have a better tactic than the one mentioned above (MS et al. pulling a Snowden and just releasing the material, which would result in life in prison for some CEO and board members). These are privately held companies, they can do business with whom they see fit. If Microsoft and Google were to suddenly decide that it was in their best interest to sever ties with the government because the governments actions were hurting their business I wonder what would happen? "Hey, your actions are affecting our bottom line, no more licences for Windows, Office, or MSSQL. We're blacklisting government IP blocks from our sites and services, and don't bother trying to call for tech support."

Probably won't happen, because at the end of the day they probably make more money from the government than they do form whatever private individuals that might stop using their service in protest. Still, it's an interesting thought experiment. Every government agency suddenly cut off from all the products that they know how to use.

...63 technology companies and advocacy groups asked the government to allow online service providers to publish general statistics about the use of secret intelligence tools, including orders under the Patriot Act’s Section 215...and section 702...

You have to know that something exists before you can ask about it. And while applaud this move, how many other sections and sub-sections of various crummy laws still allow the government to engage in the actions that they've already taken with respect to the fourth amendment and the privacy of individual citizens?

And how do we find out about them if they're cloaked in "state secrets"?

Agree, and the only solution to find about the state secrets is wishing/hoping for more Snowden, but seeing all his problems and the reaction of some people torwards what he did, saddly it might be not that many in the future, but i hope iam wrong and the right people will do the right thing with this secrets, especially the ones that go agaisnt the sentiment in the bill of rights.

Is it just me, or does the opening paragraph read strangely. A group is demanding "greater transparency about covert government surveillance programs"?

If they're transparent, what makes them covert?

It doenst make sense right, they should be demanding instead stop violating the bill of rights, or the government proceed to change the bill of rights to acomodate them to their new needs, or they proceed to eliminate the patriot act, those are the things they should demand, anything else is just damage control without any real intention on their part.

Ad yet, we still have people damning Snowden and refusing to believe PRISM is even real...

I don't think the question for most is if PRISM is real, it's more of a question of what actually goes on in the program. What does the vaguely referred to as "direct access" actually mean. Are they gathering meta data from hundreds of people, thousands, or tens of thousands?

There companies are getting blamed for a lot of things, and probably a lot of things that aren't actually happening, and they aren't permitted to really defend themselves. More transparency means less they have a little more defense against hyperbole and conspiracy theories than the vague statements they can provide currently.

They have faces a lot of backlash against things they are legally required to do and can't even publicly object to if they disagree with them.

I don't agree with what Snowden did, but I do see a need for as much transparency as there can be without seriously degrading security. It is tough to balance the need for security and the need for oversight. They already have to justify why things are being kept classified and have to rejustify it on a regular basis. However, it is probably a good idea to take another look at some of those justifications and make sure more information can't be released without significantly degrading security with improving oversight. That's something Congress is supposed to make sure happens anyway and some public and even corporate pressure on Congress to perform that duty rigorously isn't a bad thing.

I'm curious, the companies have received gag orders to not disclose what kind of information has been requested of them, but what would the government do if someone like Microsoft decided to throw caution to the wind and pull a Snowden and tell the people what has been requested and what has been provided?

Since the CEO is ultimately responsible, the CEO would be arrested and put up on either terrorism or espionage charges. Just defending those in court would cost a lot more than they are willing to spend. On top of that, all the civil suits from shareholders screaming about fiduciary responsibility for a move that puts the company stock in the toilet would bankrupt them. One CEO even privately threatened with this is enough to make all the fat cats to shut up and go home to their piles of cash.

Oh hi there, I suppose you haven't heard of corporate personhood have you? The idea that any one person takes the blame for corporate wrong-doing has gone the way of the dodo bird.

“The commercial issue is whether people around the world are going to trust American Internet companies with their data,” Digg CEO Andrew McLaughlin told the New York Times, explaining his company’s decision to sign on.

Yes, and while compliance with the terms of the letter might make some Americans feel more comfortable and go back to sleep, persons and companies in other countries who to not enjoy any of the protections US citizens do but have their data routed through the USA or put it in the hands of American companies will not.

In a time when most of these companies make more than half of their revenue outside of the USA, that matters and obviously concerns them.

Ultimately this may not affect companies selling consumer level products much, but infrastructure and data services face an uphill battle. Great market opening for non-US companies.

Is it just me, or does the opening paragraph read strangely. A group is demanding "greater transparency about covert government surveillance programs"?

If they're transparent, what makes them covert?

It doenst make sense right, they should be demanding instead stop violating the bill of rights, or the government proceed to change the bill of rights to acomodate them to their new needs, or they proceed to eliminate the patriot act, those are the things they should demand, anything else is just damage control without any real intention on their part.

They want more [b]metadata[b] about these programs released, LOL. Seriously, if you read the letter, what they are asking for is reporting on the legal basis of the covert activities and type and number of cases.

For example, such as the military reporting the number of drone strikes per year but not the details of each case.

I have a better tactic than the one mentioned above (MS et al. pulling a Snowden and just releasing the material, which would result in life in prison for some CEO and board members). These are privately held companies, they can do business with whom they see fit. If Microsoft and Google were to suddenly decide that it was in their best interest to sever ties with the government because the governments actions were hurting their business I wonder what would happen? "Hey, your actions are affecting our bottom line, no more licences for Windows, Office, or MSSQL. We're blacklisting government IP blocks from our sites and services, and don't bother trying to call for tech support."

Probably won't happen, because at the end of the day they probably make more money from the government than they do form whatever private individuals that might stop using their service in protest. Still, it's an interesting thought experiment. Every government agency suddenly cut off from all the products that they know how to use.

They are legally obligated and in the case of telecoms, subject to public licensing for what are effectively monopolies.

What if you just decided no laws apply to you and started driving against traffic? Wouldn't that be cool?

An open and democratic government cannot operate with secret courts and remain open and democratic. The secret courts need to go or be DRAMATICALLY revised.

We as a society have to pick whether we want to have the NSA and other intelligence and police agencies 'protect us at all costs' or whether we are willing to suffer and have some more deaths to terrorism, etc., in order to maintain a free and open government.

In comparison, we freely accept 8000+ deaths per year to keep the 2nd Amendment. By that comparison, even 9/11 is not enough to swing over toward giving all of our privacy away to 'stay safe' (as if that is even a real possibility).

A good start would be restricting FISC to their original job, which was reviewing warrant requests for individual investigations. It is appropriate and reasonable that those be secret. It just needs to be for individual cases rather than vast blanket orders. And they need to be forbidden from reinterpreting law and establishing new legal frameworks. Warrant or no warrant, anything else goes into the normal judicial system.

In reviewing warrant requests, FISA has to make legal judgements, and just as with normal courts they will make case law, albeit secret case law. That is the problem with secret courts.